Campaign funding and candidate’s ‘No Money’ pledge dominate state rep debate
Medical marijuana, transgender inmates, reproductive rights, immigration policy and a crumbling overpass in Somerville all got a hearing Tuesday at a three-way state representative candidates’ debate for the 26th Middlesex District, but it was issues of campaign finance, clean elections and legislative corruption and efficiency that got the most attention.
Independent Cambridge challenger Mike Connolly and his “No Money” campaign pledge was a beneficiary of the interest as well as a target, as he had a ready response for citizens’ questions in the debate’s second segment but had to explain and defend his pledge when the third segment rolled around with direct questioning from the other candidates: Democratic incumbent Tim Toomey, also of Cambridge, and Republican Thomas Vasconcelos, of Somerville.
The district includes parts of Cambridge and Somerville.
The 90-minute debate followed the format of the candidates’ first meeting, held Oct. 17 at Somerville Community Access Television in Union Square, and even had the same moderator in Joe Lynch, host of the channel’s “Greater Somerville” show. This one was hosted at Cambridge Community Television in Central Square and broadcast live on the city’s cable Channel 8. With only some 20 audience members fitting into the studio during filming, members and supporters of the three campaigns watched from a neighboring restaurant.
“Fun” and finance
Like the first debate, this one had opening statements; unlike it, there could also be closing statements, as Vasconcelos gave briefer, more measured responses than in his first outing and Lynch kept tighter rein over candidates in the third segment.
“I’m not going to let it happen, what happened at the Somerville debate,” Lynch told the candidates. “Be cognizant of the fact we have a time limit.” But he also pointed out that the direct questioning — asked for by Vasconcelos when the campaigns decided on formats and led by him each night — was “the fun part” and that, with the Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren debate for U.S. Senate canceled, “the eyes of Cambridge and the state” were on the 26th.
The first 15 minutes of “the fun part” was about Connolly’s “No Money” pledge.
“This is supposedly the foundation of your campaign. However, I have identified a few troubling cracks in that foundation … really one major concern,” Vasconcelos said. “I was going through pre-election reports that were filed to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance and discovered that two individuals actually donated the combined total of $632.19. Don’t you think you’re misleading voters with your ‘no money’ pledge when you’re accepting contributions … and I know they’re not actual U.S. dollar amounts, they’re in-kind contributions, but you’re still receiving contributions.”
Toomey added that he thought Connolly was being “somewhat disingenuous” with his pledge and wanted to know “Who’s behind the curtain?”
The candidates have had two reporting periods — pre-primary, stretching from the start of the year to Aug. 19; and pre-election, starting Aug. 20 and ending Oct. 19. In the two periods:
- Toomey took in $35,337.50 and spent $29,143.89, all as straight donations of money.
- Vasconcelos took in $2,472.75 (and $1,415 as an in-kind donation from himself) and spent $2,436.73.
- Connolly took in $4,594.29, all as in-kind contributions from his own pocket except for the $632.19 mentioned by Vasconcelos. Of that, there was a $382.19 donation of printing campaign signs from Connolly’s campaign manager, Frank Gerratana; and a $250 donation of printing campaign signs from a Sean Jeffries, a Cambridge resident listed as a scientist at Templeman Automation, a Somerville company making a computer touch-based interface from Kickstarter funds.
“There is the letter of the pledge, and that is I don’t accept any cash — any money — but then there is a spirit to what I’m doing, and for the people involved in the campaign, it’s the spirit that really attracts them. You’re right, $600 in cash, $600 in palm cards and signs, that doesn’t really make a huge difference. But there is a genuine spirit, and it really matters to people,” Connolly answered his opponents. “The reason I’m getting attention is not me, it’s not because of in-kind contributions versus cash contributions, it’s because people are hungry for an alternative to the status quo.”
He also noted that his approach was made clear from the start, pointing to the first media coverage he got — a June 21 article in The Cambridge Chronicle that explained “Connolly said he is not accepting any money and is instead spending roughly $50 per week out of his own pocket. He is accepting services-in-kind.”
Candidates for state representative in the 26th Middlesex District are caught in the glare of spotlights at Tuesday at Cambridge Community Television while they are moderator Joe Lynch prepare for a debate. (Photo: Marc Levy)
Clarifications and clean elections
Several times during the debate Vasconcelos said he agreed with Toomey on various issues, and they were united again in critiquing Connolly’s pledge: Each called it “a gimmick.”
Connolly conceded it was a gimmick, in that it was a ploy to draw attention and support for a campaign that would spend a “fraction” of what a veteran campaigner such as Toomey would spend. “There is a marketing element to it, but it is also grounded in substance. Take Rosa Parks. When she refused to get out of her seat, in some ways that was a gimmick. If she really wanted the bus to take her where she was going, she would have gotten up and moved when she was asked,” Connolly said. “She was trying to make a point.”
“If you listen to what these guys are saying, they make it sound like I’m some kind of swindler,” Connolly said.
The other candidates protested, saying that wasn’t their intention.
Toomey protested again after Connolly said donations to charities from the Toomey campaign — to Little League teams or religious festivals, for instance — could also be a form of advertising, especially when signs identify “state Rep. Toomey” as the source of funds. “I don’t look for recognition or attention. I do those because of the values instilled in me by my family,” Toomey said. “I don’t want anyone to think that I have a sign I put up there.”
And he protested yet again when Connolly said Toomey voted to kill the Clean Elections Law approved by 67 percent of voters in 1998 (including 72 percent of voters in Cambridge and Somerville), leading The Phoenix to put him on a “roster of shame.”
“Most of what he said was inaccurate,” Toomey said of Connolly, noting the law’s use in an election that “proved it really didn’t work, and in 2002 voters repealed that law by a 3-to-1 [ratio]. It was the voters who actually repealed that law when all was said and done. It was an amendment in a state budget from the Senate to not put the money in there, and I had to vote against it — if I’d voted against that amendment, I would have voted against the whole budget, and that would have meant no services for any citizen.”
That doesn’t reflect the situation as described by The Phoenix or the state chapter of the nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization Common Cause. In a summary of the issue pointed to by Connolly after the debate, the group put the blame on Toomey’s legislative body, the House, and its leader Tom Finneran, who “raised over $700,000 from corporations to defeat it [via a] deceptively worded advisory referendum.”
Toomey pointed out that he tried for a cap on spending, such as a limit of $50,000 for a race for state representative or $125,000 in a race for state senator, as well as a cap on donations from people and unions of $100 apiece.
“Everyone is for clean elections, there’s no question about that at all,” Toomey said.
Vasconcelos reminded watchers of his libertarian roots several times during the debate, including his belief that government should not be using taxpayer money to pay for campaigns. “Individuals such as Rep. Toomey are perfectly capable of raising their own funds,” he said.
An educated populace could vote out the politicians it didn’t like, he said, which is why “the best way to tackle reform is full transparency. A lot of times money is shifted around and we don’t know exactly who is donating to who.”
Reproductive rights
During a part of the debate not related to campaign finance, Connolly told Toomey he was hearing from constituents “concerned you’re pro-life” and asked about his endorsement in 2010 by Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a group that describes itself as “pro-life” and says “Ending legal abortion is the centerpiece of the pro-life agenda.”
Toomey’s reply:
First of all, I have a zero percent rating from Massachusetts Citizens for Life, so once again Mike, you’re incorrect. I think everyone knows my position on this — that I am personally opposed to abortion. But in the 20 years that I have been at the State House there has not been one vote to limit or restrict abortion rights taken by myself. My position in the legislature has always been to minimize the number of unwanted pregnancies that occur in Massachusetts. And to that end, I voted for the three bills Naral has called its legislative victories of the past 10 years. I voted for all three: to require insurance companies to cover contraception, to allow over-the-counter access to Plan B and to create buffer zones around reproductive health clinics so women going in there for services are not harassed. And right now I’m co-sponsoring two bills that are supported by Planned Parenthood: comprehensive sex education, which I’ve always supported … and safe pregnancies for incarcerated women. Over the past years I have sponsored and secured increased funding for family planning agencies throughout the commonwealth and have several awards in recognition.
“I think I have a zero rating from Massachusetts Citizens for Life and from Naral. I do not respond to their questionnaires,” Toomey said.
However the pro-life group gathered its information, and while it may be in opposition to Toomey’s record on Beacon Hill, Connolly appears to be right about how the group ranks Toomey. In its 2010 ratings recorded by Project Vote Smart, Massachusetts Citizens for Life awarded Toomey a 100 percent; in a PDF election guide for the current race, it says Toomey is pro-life and Connolly and Vasconcelos are “anti-life.”
In the current Naral Pro-Choice Massachusetts voters guide, Connolly and Vasconcelos are listed as “pro-choice” but not endorsed and Toomey is listed as having a “mixed” record, which it defines as being a candidate who “supports a woman’s right to choose with certain restrictions.”
Rosa Parks? Is this guy serious?
Mr. Connolly refers to himself as a “Progressive Independent” running a “No Money” Campaign that he admits is a gimmick. On top of that he refers to changing the culture and tone on Beacon Hill to be more inclusive and progressive yet he refers to Rosa Parks and her brave stance in the battle for civil rights as a “Gimmick”. Such a comment is neither reflective of progressive values nor supportive of his claim to want to create a more inclusive approach to government and an egalitarian society and has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE in Cambridge, Somerville or any other community. He should be ashamed of this statement but the voters should be thankful, he showed his true self before the election.
Please keep in mind that Connolly referred to his approach as a gimmick only in response to Toomey and Vasconcelos and in the context that he is promoting a “No Money” campaign to make a larger point.
In fact, there is plenty of material showing Rosa Parks’ protest was a device to draw attention to a civil rights issue. As the ADL writes at http://www.adl.org/education/rosa_parks.asp: “The portrayal of Rosa Parks as a poor, tired and frail woman who ‘snapped’ is not only false; it disregards the years of strategic planning by Civil Rights Movement activists and misrepresents the way in which meaningful social change actually occurs.”
An enjoyably written item by Alistair Cooke, who was present and reporting at the time, is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/oct/04/9.
Cooke writes: “On a December day in 1955, four blacks went aboard a city bus and sat where they’d never sat before, in the forward section reserved always for whites. The bus driver, following the city law, asked them to move to the back. The three men complied. The fourth, a woman, refused … It was, of course, Rosa Parks … ‘That same afternoon, thousands of printed handbills mysteriously dropped on the doorsteps of the coloured homes in the neighborhood urging a boycott of the bus line, to begin two days later.’ …
“In shorter words, Miss Rosa Parks’s decision to stay in a forward seat was the first move in a planned boycott of the bus company and the city law, a campaign organised long before by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People …
“We could leave it there, having made the seemingly mean point that Miss Rosa Parks just happened to be chosen as the cat’s-paw or dupe of a boycott campaign well planned beforehand. Well, it’s not so. She did the choosing. She was not just another bus rider. She was the secretary of a city chapter of the NAACP 12 years before she stood, or sat, her ground in 1955. The first time she was thrown off a bus was for using the white entrance – at the front. That takes us back to 1943 … From that time on, she was a prominent civil rights activist (this is all, remember, 10 or more years before the supreme court’s ruling abolishing segregation). May 1954 is always given, and rightly, as the Bastille Day – the day that started the revolution for equal black rights.
“Rosa Parks, the 86-year-old lady, so belatedly honoured, now recalls: ‘It was not that I was just fed up in December 1955. I’d been fed up my whole life, as far back as I can remember, with being treated as less than a free person.’ So, she stayed put on that bus, knowing there’d be unpleasant treatment, and nasty telephone calls. She didn’t know she and her husband would receive death threats for another 12 years, which forced them, eventually, to move to the middle west, to Detroit. It wasn’t the end of her activism. She joined the 1963 March on Washington, was on the frightening but now famous march from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery, the city of her notoriety and her persecution and, now, her glory.
“So, after all, Rosa Parks was no accidental heroine. For her, December 1955 was not the start of anything. It was the end of her rope, the last straw of her tolerance of harassment and shaming and white beastliness. That gold medal and that resolution of Congress passed in April were little enough compensation for a lifetime’s crime – of being black.
So let me get this straight. A white guy in 2012 who is sort of but not really refusing campaign contributions is basically the same as Rosa Parks standing up on a bus and risking arrest or worse for basic civil and human rights?
Sorry, Marc. There’s no saving your guy from this one.
I didn’t see Connolly as comparing himself with Rosa Parks. I believe the context makes clear that he was talking about the definition of “gimmick” — a means to attract attention. It is my understanding that he thinks getting money out of politics is a good cause, which is why he took the “No Money” approach.
I think your statement is going off the rails a bit. Here’s what Connolly said: “There is a marketing element to it, but it is also grounded in substance. Take Rosa Parks. When she refused to get out of her seat, in some ways that was a gimmick. If she really wanted the bus to take her where she was going, she would have gotten up and moved when she was asked … She was trying to make a point.”
Nowhere in there does Connolly say he is “basically the same as Rosa Parks.”
He says that there are similarities between his commitment to sort of take no campaign contributions and Rosa Parks risking her freedom and her future to stand up for basic human rights. It’s a ridiculous comparison because Connolly has absolutely nothing to lose. To somehow say that Rosa Parks’s “gimmick” is even close to being in the same category is a privileged, offensive statement.
And in case anyone is wondering where the line is drawn between “bloggers” and “journalists,” it’s right here in this comment thread.
Hi folks –
Before this becomes another heated comment thread, I want to weigh in on my personal view of what this whole issue of what the “No Money” pledge is really about.
Mike cares deeply about this issue of money in politics and sees it as a severe, fundamental problem in the modern political system that affects us all. I know Mike’s stance on this issue well and have talked to him extensively about why he feels it is such a problem.
It’s been an honor to work on Mike’s campaign because I have always been uncomfortable with the role that fundraising and donor-seeking has played in the political process. People with money have more influence on our elected officials than people without money. The higher you go in the political food chain, the bigger an issue this is.
One big difference between Mike and me is that I have always felt like I have had a say in the political process. I attend fundraisers and I donate money to political campaigns and I get to talk to candidates after writing them a check. I’ve never been poor.
But Mike has been poor. I’ve been inspired by Mike’s willingness to take a stand on this issue, and work tirelessly knocking on doors and making it known that the idea of a candidate who does not accept cash – especially a candidate who comes a background like his – is not only rare, but laughed at by political insiders who expect elected officials to depend on money to stay in office.
I’m really glad this issue is getting attention and I’m glad that “No Money” is a slogan that is getting press. I hope that someday soon a system of public financing is restored and fully funded in Massachusetts. In the meantime, I look forward to Election Day.
P.S. I felt last night’s debate was especially civil. All three candidates were polite and stuck to substantive issues. That’s the political process I am proud to be a part of.
“People with money have more influence on our elected officials than people without money.”
I agree to the extent that political contributions make a huge dent in who makes it into the political sphere, but Mike Conolly’s “NO MONEY” campaign isn’t the magical answer to the problem. Mike Conolly has enough fortunate enough to be able to put $4,000 dollars of his own money into his campaign. Does that not put individuals with more disposable income at an advantage? While reform is certainly necessary (such as limits on individual contributions), Mike Conolly’s slogan is just that…a slogan.
With regard to the Rosa Parks comment from the debate last night, I am appalled. Not many people have the privilege that Mr. Connoly has and for him to take that privilege and refer to civil disobedience as a “gimmick” is disgusting and exposes a level of detachment that I would not want representing me at Beacon Hill.
Various people are taking Connolly’s statement out of context and twisting into something that clearly did not mean for their own dubious purposes. It was the other candidates who called the No Money pledge a “gimmick,” which itself is an indication of their own inability to appreciate the extreme public frustration about the excessive infuence of money in politics. Connolly agreed with the “gimmick” characterization only to the extent he acknowledged that his action is meant to symbolize rejection of the money driven electoral process — not constitute a literal refusal to use any money at all (which is impossible). Indeed, there is a long tradition within progressive social movements of doing similar such things — taking actions that symbolize refusal to accept the unjust status quo. That was the meaning behind the reference to Rosa Parks, which seen in the above light is entirely appropriate. And this is the reason Mike has been endorsed by Lawrence Lessig, one of the most respected intellectual leaders of the campaign finance reform movement.
Also, Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most repected progressive intellectual in the U.S., endorsed Connolly precisely because of his No Money pledge. Chomsky himself is known to have compared the campaign to the start of the Civil Rights Movement, which may be where Connolly first got the idea.
By comparison, Tim Toomey’s claim last night that he is a “progressive leader” was a real travesty. No one who is widely acknowledged as a leader of the progressive community would take some of Toomey’s positions — his opposition to a public campaign finance, his opposition to abortion rights (on record at Vote Smart), his claim that our state is headed in the right direction, and his comment that the state legislature is doing a good job. The last two assertions fly in the face of what the vast majority of people in the state think, according the poll that was cited at the debate. This reflects Toomey’s profound disconnection from popular disgust at Beacon Hill politics as usual (of which he undoubtedly is a part). No true progressive would say that a state which cuts public services substantially while continuing to lower taxes on corporations is headed in the right direction.
I’ve really come to feel sorry for you Somervillian, always having to defend the undefensible. But since you’re from Somerviile, perhaps you didn’t get to read what the other Cambridge new outlet had to say today about Mr. Connolly
“No Money Mike’s campaign centered on a genuinely noble ideal that left us feeling swindled in the end. We liked the idea of “no money,” but in practice, it didn’t seem to stop Connolly from using the same negative campaign tactics that we’ve come to expect from campaigns with money, and he still failed to give us a credible argument for where Toomey was really failing as a politician.”
Guess Mr. Connolly was wrong when he said during the debate “If you listen to what these guys are saying, they make it sound like I’m some kind of swindler” There are those who do feel swindled.
Once again, Microman fails to respond to the substance of my comments. And I see no substance in his. If he wants to let the Cambridge Chronicle do his thinking for him, that’s fine.
So, when Mike “No Money” Connolly said he was running a “no money” campaign, he didn’t actually mean “no money” and we were all supposed to know that?
I can’t think of a single good reason for a white guy who attended two private schools to compare himself to Rosa Parks. Unless the chief of the Cambridge police turned a fire hose on Connolly and I just missed it.
I guess Mike “No Money But Yes Actually Some Money” Connolly just didn’t have the same ring to it. With progressives like this, who needs conservatives?
Wow! Hyperbole knows no bounds in the service of ad hominem attacks directed by innerbeltway, JohnM, studentsvote and microman, all of whom speak with an eerily similar voice. These “people” are “appalled”! There is “disgust”! Mike has “ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE” in Cambridge! He should be “ashamed”!
What a load of crap.
The writer of these screeds (innerbeltway et al, if there is an et al.) apparently knows no shame.
Let’s please look at the circumstance. Mike Connolly has put himself out for public scrutiny with the claim that he will honestly represent the community and strive to do better.
The incumbent, Tim Toomey, has had about 20 years to make a difference. So far he demonstrates a commitment to nothing greater than Constituent Service, which is a euphemism that politicians of no greater distinction use to describe their granting of government favors (at public expense) to individuals and entities that please them. This unvirtuous behavior is rendered a cycle when those who are favored by politicians repay that favor with donations, typically denominated in cash money (about $35k to Mr. Toomey, so far this election).
So why should Mike Connolly be ashamed?
For his candor about how he is running his campaign? He accepts no monetary contributions. That’s why he’s branded himself “No Money Mike.” It is preposterous to criticize Mike for spending his own money or for accepting materials supplied by others. Again, Tim Toomey – $35,000. Mike Connolly – $4,400ish. Now what is the criticism here? Has Mike accepted a cash donation? Umm, no.
The term gimmick is brandished, and Mike, an honest man, acknowledges the role of his “No Money” pledge in branding his campaign. Is every attention-getting device a dishonest gimmick? Rosa Park’s calculated act of civil disobedience is in fact a very apt analogy to Mike’s No Money pledge. Is all the pink brandished for breast cancer awareness a meaningless gimmick? Maybe these are all honest efforts to draw attention to important issues?
The manufactured outrage and faux indignation expressed by microman “et al.” is absurd, and it warrants no consideration. None at all.
I see no evidence that Tim Toomey is a bad man, but I do so him in an increasingly desperate bid for his jobs. These attacks on Mike Connolly are mean-spirited, dishonest, ignorant and uncivil. It’s disappointing to see this level of political discourse, and there’s no doubt that this has a chilling effect that discourages good and decent people from standing for public office.
The Republican in this election, Tom Vasconselos, deserves respect for his honest contributions to this race. I appreciate his asking Mike about campaign financing, as I had the same question. Tom demonstrated his intelligence and intellectual honesty in understanding Mike’s response. He did not launch a disingenuous, artificial tirade to advance a political point. Instead, Tom clearly stated his disagreement with public campaign finance based on fiscal considerations. I disagree with Tom on this point, but Tom seems to be an honest man, willing to engage in substantial discussion. Tom V has promise.
I can’t imagine Mike Connolly needs the like of me to say this, but thanks, Mike, for your courage, and keep going!
innerbeltway, JohnM, microman and studentsvote: you are bullies, and your vitriol is toxic to the community and to our democracy. I denounce you.
P.S. Admin, I would be happy to show you how to check the IP addresses of the posters here, to see who is coming from where, and how many of these handles represent unique individuals.
But he said that there’s no difference between accepting cash and accepting in-kind contributions, so why does it matter if he’s accepting one and not the other?
Also, in a separate thread, you accused Toomey of peddling influence, which is a crime, so spare me the “I see no evidence that Toomey is a bad man” stuff. This “he’s a good guy, just wrong for us” was what Romney tried to do to Obama, and I don’t like it when my fellow progressives copy the Republicans.
I DENOUNCE YOU, SIR! PISTOLS AT DAWN, IF YOU HAVE ANY HONOR, SIR!
First of all, to the people who are acting all surprised that Mike has accepted materials, I would say don’t blame Mike for YOUR inability to pay attention. He has been quite clear about the nature of the “no money” pledge from the beginning, and has talked about material donations from the get-go, INCLUDING in press pieces.
Basically, if you didn’t know that, it’s because you didn’t pay attention to him or his campaign, which leads me to wonder whether you have any actual foundation for your opposition, or if you’re just opposing him because you like Toomey for some reason.
Second, the Rosa Parks remark was a comparison of TACTICS, not people or causes. The tactic of doing something symbolic to garner attention is an old one, and works in many different situations and for many different causes. The fact that it succeeded in getting attention does not make it any less worthwhile. It meant that while Toomey has had to spend tens of thousands on his campaign, Mike was able to make a bigger splash with less money, and isn’t that the kind of creative thinking and efficient work we WANT in a candidate?
The purpose of “no money” is to ensure that the candidate is not left with a conflict of interest. Toomey has received thousands of dollars in contributions from people who, quite reasonably, expect something in return. This is how the politics of our country have come to work over the years, and this is what Mike is fighting against. Because he spent money out of pocket on this, Mike is in a position where he had no outstanding obligation to any one contributor – the most valuable contributions to his campaign have been people (myself included, just to be clear) going door to door, and the voters themselves.
He is also advocating that very limited funds be made available to those who can’t spend the whopping $80/week this averages out to over the course of a year, for that same reason – so that there is no need for the kind of financial obligations that surround politicians like Toomey.
Jamie, Mike did not say what you said he said. However, Mike did give an honest reply, and you are left to ponder the difference: Toomey – $35,000 vs. Connolly – $632.
And I do not say what you say I said. I accuse Toomey of the graft and corruption that infects our entire political process.
Why are you hating on Mike Connolly for trying to be better than that?
Further, this thing where you make stuff up and accuse your enemies of saying what you make up is weird. Maybe a little too much WRKO?
Everyone (or the one person) bashing Mike Connolly on here is still missing the main point: a gimmick is a means of attracting attention. Everyone seeking political office needs attention – especially when they refuse cash contributions! And *that* is what Mike has done. An in-kind contribution, such as the signs that 2 people printed for Mike, is not cash – nor is volunteering, canvassing, or knocking on doors, or making phone calls, all of which people have been happy to do for Mike. And none of which violate his pledge to take no cash, but to accept services and in-kind donations.
I’m happy he’s running, and I hope he wins.
And, for those of you who still want to smear him for his *accurate* statement regarding Rosa Parks, and the well-planned protest and boycott for which she is famous (thanks, prior commenters, for correctly stating the record on this): look in a dictionary.
gimmick.
gim·mick
noun.
a trick or device used to attract business or attention
Gimmick n. 1. A shiny seductive finish applied to a big pile of bull shit.2.A ploy geared to make you believe something of an untrue nature.
Source – Urban Dictionary
Microman, you seem to be holding on to a lot of anger, and I have to say I’m not sure why. That is, of course your business, but given the reality of the situation – that Mike has been open about the nature of his pledge, and his reasons for it, and that he’s also worked hard on substance – I can’t help but feel that you’re just mad that he’s doing well, and for some reason you’ll say anything to smear his name.
Why else would you turn to the urban dictionary for a definition? Why else pick the one of eleven totally different definitions that fits your personal argument?
It’s almost like the actual definition of the word doesn’t say what YOU want it to, so you went scrounging around the internet to find one that suited you better than reality…
As much as microman would like to divert the discussion to some irrelevance that he digs up in a seamy corner of the internet, the issues with campaign finance in this election are straight forward.
Tim Toomey runs a standard political outfit, the usual quid pro quo arrangement where you scratch his back and he scratches yours.
Mike Connolly will not accept money donations. Get it? No Money.
Toomey – $35,000, delivered in cash. Legal, but that doesn’t make it good.
Connolly – $632 from 2 of his patrons, delivered in the form of yard signs and pamphlets.
I suppose microman isn’t familiar with the sort of honest candor that allows Mike not to quibble about whether you want to call his No Money pledge a gimmick.
Mike Connolly seeks a better way. For reasons that microman and his kind appear incapable of understanding, Mike, and his supporters very much including myself, think that we can do better. So long as Mike’s willing, I’m going to do my best to help him do that.
And I’m going to keep calling bullshit on microman every single time I see it.